According to the Brookings Institution analysis, the less-than-500 counties Clinton won nationwide combined to generate 64 percent of America’s economic activity in 2015, the Washington Post reported.

The more-than-2,600 counties President-elect Donald Trump won combined to generate 36 percent of the country’s economic activity last year.

When you look at a map of the counties, look at the not sea but OCEAN of Trump victories versus the tiny number of Hillary county wins:

Consider the fact that the states where Clinton won decisively were “port states” that feature by mere factoid of geography the largest and most economically powerful ports on planet earth where all the commerce in the world must pass through to get to or from the American people. Consider that that is more than a damn gold mine; it is guaranteed money and with that kind of institutional wealth a man or a party can be complete and total morons and STILL be rich beyond imagination.

Just imagine California, with the Ports of Los Angeles, San Diego, Long Beach, San Francisco, Oakland. Do you have any idea how powerful these ports are in global trade? And its the same back east where Clinton also did well. Do you have any idea how much of a total, utterly-divorced-from-reality MORON and FOOL you can be and STILL MAKE BILLIONS when you have these assets in your pocket??? When you have a major port under your control, you can impose ANYTHING and still make money – especially if all the OTHER major port cities are as irrationally leftist as you are. And that is the case in California. It is a LIE that the Democrats represent “the people” who are oppressed and harassed by wealthy Republicans; the reality IS JUST THE DAMN OPPOSITE. As I just easily demonstrated in the article above and the election-by-county above.

How is it not “fake news” to have not covered that fact that IS the Democratic Party, that they are and have been the party of the rich and the powerful who exploit the rest of us??? I hear that demonically untrue statement all the damn time. To not cover the FACT that the Democratic Party is the Party of rabid sociopathic cockroaches who are living in some disconnected reality and can only do so because other people built wealth FOR them that they took over to fund their operations???

What about the “fake news” angle that Hillary was going to win this damn election to begin with, given all the damn hideously and embarrassingly wrong media polls that were so terrible skewed in her favor in a rather blatantly “fake news” manner if hindsight and factual reality have anything to say??? How about the fact that these fake news polls generated by our “legitimate news media” consistently hyped a fact racial angle disproven by the fact that Trump won more blacks than they said, more Hispanics than they said and more women than they said???

Why do these people who keep being so damn WRONG insist on our respect??? Especially when they’re so wrong because they are such intolerant, narrow-minded BIGOTS who despise everybody in what they call “flyover country” as they look down on them in every way one can look down on other people???

Harkening back to my last article, the hard-core racist angle that the media and the Democratic Party pimped is the worst “fake news” story of all.

Bill Clinton – in his excuse-making for his wife’s failure to put his adulterous woman-abusing ass back in the White House – said this of Donald Trump:

He doesn’t know much,” Clinton said when asked if Trump was smart. “One thing he does know is how to get angry, white men to vote for him.”

Do you want to know who the “angriest white man” of ALL is? Look in the mirror, Slick Willy!!!

And this race-baiting angle again: Bill Clinton is the one who said that “a few years ago, this guy [Obama] would be getting us our coffee” to Ted Kennedy when he was a rival to his wife’s political aspirations. And Bill Clinton is the one who said in eulogy of the last Senator to ever hold the titles of Ku Klux Klan “Exalted Cyclops” and “Grand Kleagle”:

“He once had a fleeting association with the Ku Klux Klan, what does that mean? I’ll tell you what it means. He was a country boy from the hills and hollows from West Virginia. He was trying to get elected,” former President Bill Clinton said of Sen. Robert Byrd.

So hard-core, Klan racism is fine – as long as it helps a Democrat to get elected.

It’s only when “angry white men” vote REPUBLICAN that it’s somehow evil. At least to Democrats like Bill Clinton who are the poster boys for “evil.”

What about the “real news” angle that Democrats very much seem to composed of people who have no empathy whatsoever for anyone who is not directly like them??? What about the “real news” angle of the hypocrisy of these people who scream about the very things that they themselves do FAR MORE than the people they are always screaming at???

You tell me the major conservative media source – and I want the link that has the text or the video and if you show me the video include a transcript of what was said that was specifically in-your-face-offensive – in which we have black women being targeted for shame. Because the right has nothing even CLOSE to this. Just so you can see how blatantly hypocritical this is.

What about the “fake news” angle of the electoral college vote yesterday. The same media that generated so much hype with the intent of undermining and delegitimizing Donald Trump’s presidency before the man even takes office now acknowledges that there was absolutely no way in hell that 37 Republicans were going to vote against their president elect against the will of the people whose will they had sworn to represent. In “fact,” since we talk about “fake news,” when that actual electoral college vote occurred, only two Republican electors voted against Trump versus FIVE who voted against Hillary Clinton.

The recount, requested and paid for by Green Party candidate Jill Stein, produced a net gain of 131 votes for Trump out of nearly 3 million cast in the state.

It also ended any lingering uncertainty about the outcome of the presidential race, giving Trump a clear victory over his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton that the Electoral College is expected to affirm when it convenes next week.

Again, given hindsight and actual reality, it was “fake news” for the mainstream media to have covered this damn story the way they did, but they covered it in a blatantly “fake news” manner anyway. Because they are CHEAP SHOT artists and that is ALL they are.

So, we’ve got the “fake news” meme that Hillary “won” the popular vote – even though that is entirely irrelevant to anything other than whiners’ whining. But what about the REAL news fact that just three voting regions – California, New York and the District of Colombia – accounted for 13.6 million votes for Hillary Clinton versus 7.3 million for Donald Trump. And that is a margin of 6.3 million votes. Given that Democrats want to fascistically overturn our Constitution’s electoral college in favor of a “popular vote” that our founding fathers specifically rejected, and given that more than TWICE Hillary’s so-called “popular vote” victory came in less than six percent of our fifty-one electoral contests, is it not “real news” to point out the totalitarianism of the left??? But nope! Instead the frame is of Trump “losing” the popular vote and therefore being undermined and delegitimized by “journalists” who have taken ideological sides and spin their stories in an incredibly and blatantly partisan manner.

Every single legitimate journalist is out there screaming in story after story about this shameful episode from Hillary Clinton and from the Democratic Party. And since the silence is deafening, THERE ARE NO LEGITIMATE JOURNALISTS.

In addition to the wealthy coastal areas (due to PORTS not governance), Hillary dominated in the dense urban areas, the big cities, but did appallingly in the rural (less densely populated) areas. You ought to soberly reflect what this means: Democrats want to be able to control where you live and how you live (because they own the buildings and dominate assisted housing projects); they want to control where you go and how you get there (because they are constantly working to undermine and delegitimize and ultimately criminalize private vehicles in favor of public transportation). They want to crowd everyone into these dense urban cities where THEY control you. And you compare that to the giant ocean of red that voted for Donald Trump who said, “Hell NO!”

If you favor totalitarianism, you voted for Hillary. Otherwise you voted for Trump.

Have you ever seen that slant, that twist, that “spin” in ANY mainstream media presentation??? Of course you haven’t. Because everything they write or say is framed through their partisan liberal ideological prisms. It’s that Orwell line from Animal Farm:

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

How about this, liberal: “White Lives Matter!” “Men’s Lives Matter.” “Rural Lives Matter.” We are branded “intolerant” and “racist” and “misogynist” and hell, let’s just admit it, “racist” is their favorite word so it’s always their go-to play. But they get to do the opposite and in their hypocrisy it’s fine.

Believe it or not, I’m actually STILL not done with the “fake news” from the mainstream media over the election! What about what both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton said about “rigging the election” prior to the election:

“Every expert, regardless of political party, regardless of ideology, conservative or liberal, who has ever examined these issues in a serious way, will tell you that instances of significant voter fraud are not to be found,” Mr. Obama said. “There is no evidence that that has happened in the past or that there are instances in which that will happen this time.” — Barack Obama

“There is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America’s elections, in part because they’re so decentralized and the numbers of votes involved,” Obama said. “There’s no evidence that that has happened in the past or that there are instances in which that will happen this time,” he continued. “And so, I ‘d advise Mr. Trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes.”

“I’d advise Mr. Trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes,” Obama said. “And if he got the most votes, then it would be my expectation of Hillary Clinton to offer a gracious concession speech and pledge to work with him in order to make sure that the American people benefit from an effective government, and it would be my job to welcome Mr. Trump, regardless of what he said about me, or my differences with him on my opinions, and escort him over to the Capitol, in which there would about peaceful transfer of power.”

“Every time Donald thinks things are not going in his direction, he claims whatever it is is rigged against him.” — Hillary Clinton

“We know the difference between leadership and dictatorship, and the peaceful transition of power is one of the things that sets us apart,” Clinton told a rally in Cleveland, Ohio, one of the key swing states up for grabs on November 8. “Donald Trump refused to say that he’d respect the results of this election. By doing that, he’s threatening our democracy.”

What about all the crap about accepting the damn results and welcoming the incoming president???

What about the real news angle that WHO THE HELL IS THE BUTTHURT WHINING THREAT TO OUR DEMOCRACY NOW???

Why is the media not EXCORIATING Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for their abject and immoral hypocrisy in which they have condemned themselves as worthy of conviction of treason by their own damn previous words before the election they thought they had in the damn bag???

As SOON as the election was over, the Democrats IMMEDIATELY began to organize their “resistance” that during the Obama years amounted to racist treason when one Republican said his goal was to make Obama a one-term president. As SOON as the election was over, Democrats began to try to undermine the legitimacy of Trump’s election win by suggesting that the election had been “hacked” by Russia.

For the “real news” angle, first let me say that the term “hacked” is a loaded and baked term of slander: NO ONE HAS EVER SUGGESTED that ANY of the Clinton or Podesta or DNC emails leaked to WikiLeaks had been “hacked.” They were NOT CHANGED. There has NEVER BEEN A SINGLE INSTANCE WHERE WIKILEAKS HAS EVER CHANGED THE CONTENTS OF ANY EMAIL OR SECRET THEY HAVE PUBLICIZED.

A WikiLeaks figure is claiming that he received leaked Clinton campaign emails from a “disgusted” Democratic whistleblower, while the White House continued to blame Russian hackers Wednesday for meddling in the presidential election and asserted that Donald Trump was “obviously aware” of Moscow’s efforts on his behalf.

Craig Murray, a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, said in the report by the Daily Mail that he flew to Washington for a clandestine handoff with one of the email sources in September.

He said he received a package in a wooded area near American University.
“Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,” Mr. Murray told the British newspaper. “The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.”

WikiLeaks published thousands of emails stolen from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, providing a steady stream of negative news coverage of the Democratic presidential nominee during the final weeks of the campaign. Mr. Murray said the leakers were motivated by “disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.”

And while I’m asking these questions, let me ask just what kind of rabid, morally schizophrenic fool ARE you not to believe that the Democrats who were PROVEN to have rigged an election against Bernie Sanders would rig an election in a damn heartbeat against a man they despise far, FAR more than Bernie Sanders???

Amazingly, Kool-Aid-drinking, screaming, hysterical, rabid Democrats are now pointing to the very emails that prove they themselves rigged an election to claim that the election was somehow rigged. Because apparently to tell the truth or to allow the truth to be revealed amounts to “rigging” for these lying slandering perverts.

To whatever the hell extent Russia was involved, they were GIVEN access first to Hillary Clinton, and then through her to her campaign manager John Podesta, and from them to the DNC, by Hilary Clinton’s illegal and immoral use of a secret private server that she didn’t bother to protect.

What about THAT “real news” angle about the avalanche of FAKE NEWS that the Democrats, that Barack Obama, that Hillary Clinton, that the DNC, had been falsely perpetuating for MONTHS regarding Hillary’s email scandal where they claimed over and over again that there was no way the Russians had “hacked” a CRIMINALLY and TREASONOUSLY IRRESPONSIBLE AND RECKLESS HILLARY CLINTON SECRET SERVER. And now these same cynical, lying fascists are out there screaming as they try to exploit Hillary’s criminal, treasonous reckless irresponsibility as their primary mans to undermine the presidency of the man who won the election???

What about the “fake news” of reporting this story purely from the eyes of the leftist roach and NEVER from the vantage point of the TRUTH???

What traitor to America allowed this disgrace to HAPPEN in the FIRST PLACE??? His name is Barack Hussein Obama, and at best the man is so incompetent that he should have been removed from office for mental deficiency.

Russia played Obama for a fool and Obama was the fool who got played. What Russia did – again, if they actually even DID anything at all – was to take the candidate who was leading in all the mainstream media’s “fake news” polls and who was therefore supposed to win the election and tell the truth about this evil sociopathic witch to undermine her presidency. And, of course, in the crazy chance that Trump could win, count on the Democratic Party to treasonously undermine the Trump presidency. It was win-win. Which is to say that all the Russians needed for their master plan to succeed was to count on two things that were safe bets: the wickedness and the incompetence of Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.

Let me ask you a question, Democrat: if the next U.S. president is delegitimized – as you are so desperately trying to do with your every tactic since he won no matter how hypocritical or disgraceful by your own previous standards it is – do you or do you not realize that Russia benefits from a delegitimized American presidency???

You are HELPING Russia, you fools. While screaming just the damn OPPOSITE.

Which makes it an amazing act of chutzpah that the primary generator of fake news would tackle “fake news.”

Why don’t we just allow the rapists and the child-molesters to police themselves, while we’re at it??? And as horrifying as that thought is, it still wouldn’t be as destructive to our democracy and to our very civilization as allowing “journalists” to police themselves given what they’ve been busted for doing.

I could talk about Obama and his “fake news” about his ObamaCare disaster that created giant increases in health care premiums amidst less actual health care even as Obama boasted about bogus “insurance” that meant NOTHING; about his failed economy that left millions and millions of middle-class Americans freezing in the mud even as Obama boasted about bogus economic statistics that had no connection to reality; about his failed strategy to cope with terrorism that will have increased by one-thousand, nine-hundred percent by the time he leaves office.

You want to avoid “fake news”? Then disregard everything Obama says. Disregard everything ANY Democrat says. Disregard whatever the New York Times, or the network news stations, CNN, or pretty near anyone else, “report.”

To the extent that we have a problem with “fake news” misleading Americans, it comes down to this: the liberal, mainstream media destroyed all credibility in legitimate reporting due to their constant, over-the-top, partisan, ideological, biased “reporting.”

To the extent that you give liberals control over ANYTHING, they will destroy that thing. And so we have the examples of health care, education, national security, and yes, most assuredly journalism. I recall the George Orwell observation, “So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don’t even know that fire is hot.” And so in their “good intentions” they fail to understand that the road to hell is paved with their damned good intentions and they burn down everything they touch.

If you want to know why “fake news” has become so prominent, look no farther than Democrats and the propagandists who today staff the overwhelming majority of our “news” coverage. Look at how outrageously dishonest and partisan they are as a matter of routine.

But the heart of liberalism is intolerance, fascism and totalitarianism: and so it’s not that Democrats who still celebrate the “Liar of the Year,” Barack Obama; it’s that THEY want to be in solitary control of all the “fake news” they pump out. They want to rival voices to be heard. Just as they don’t want rival STATES to be heard in the electoral college which they therefore want to abolish.

What is the clear result of this doctrine? It is one thing: that government should have absolutely no limit on its growing power and influence while religion should be marginalized and forbidden from increasing areas of discourse.

Now the government of “God damn America” can impose abortion and the radical homosexual agenda on the church and the church is immoral for publicly decrying the impositions.

“Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.”

Not that that mattered. I mean, FDR didn’t have much more to do with the Constitution than Jefferson did, but somehow you don’t see liberal Supreme Court Justices dictating that all government unions be immediately abolished citing FDR the way they so gleefully cite Jefferson to undermine and replace religion in America.

But wouldn’t it be nice if FDR phrases such as “a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government” and that government labor unions represent “the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it” the way they exploited Jefferson’s phraseology???

But lets just stick with the words of the founding fathers. Because we can stick with them all the livelong day and make our point. In fact, let’s just stick with the words of Thomas Jefferson for a while. Because it’s rather easy to demonstrate that the liberal justices who decreed that Jefferson’s words were the soul of the Constitution even though they had nothing whatsoever to do with the Constitution dishonestly and blatantly ignored pretty much absolutely everything else that Jefferson ever said.

It’s a shame that the liberals on the Supreme Court fixated on Jefferson’s words that could be twisted and distorted to attack religion in America rather than focus on OTHER words of Jefferson that would have shaped a better society such as:

“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.”

And:

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”

And:

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”

And:

“If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.”

And:

“To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”

And:

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”

Why hasn’t Ruth Bader Ginsburg changed America with these words by Jefferson the way her ideological liberal judicial forerunners changed America with words by Jefferson???

“Of all the habits and dispositions which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars.” — George Washington

“We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” — John Adams

“…And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion…reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” –- George Washington, Farewell Address, Sept 17, 1796

“Religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness.” –- Samuel Adams, Letter to John Trumbull, October 16, 1778

“The great pillars of all government and of social life [are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor…and this alone, that renders us invincible.” –- Patrick Henry, Letter to Archibald Blair, January 8, 1789

“This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt.” —Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

“The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.” —Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.” —Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

I hope you see the hypocrisy by now.

Liberals are people who want to destroy the last vestige of true religion in America while imposing the union agenda in the church’s place. And if they can literally read a phrase such as “wall of separation between church and state” while specifically omitting the rest of the context of the letter those words are found in, and then blatantly ignore the very clear intent of the founding fathers that America needed to be what Lincoln described as “one nation under God,” well, they’re liberal ideologues and that’s what liberal ideologues do.

As the dean of Harvard Medical School I am frequently asked to comment on the health-reform debate. I’d give it a failing grade.

Instead of forthrightly dealing with the fundamental problems, discussion is dominated by rival factions struggling to enact or defeat President Barack Obama’s agenda. The rhetoric on both sides is exaggerated and often deceptive. Those of us for whom the central issue is health—not politics—have been left in the lurch. And as controversy heads toward a conclusion in Washington, it appears that the people who favor the legislation are engaged in collective denial.

Our health-care system suffers from problems of cost, access and quality, and needs major reform. Tax policy drives employment-based insurance; this begets overinsurance and drives costs upward while creating inequities for the unemployed and self-employed. A regulatory morass limits innovation. And deep flaws in Medicare and Medicaid drive spending without optimizing care.

Speeches and news reports can lead you to believe that proposed congressional legislation would tackle the problems of cost, access and quality. But that’s not true. The various bills do deal with access by expanding Medicaid and mandating subsidized insurance at substantial cost—and thus addresses an important social goal. However, there are no provisions to substantively control the growth of costs or raise the quality of care. So the overall effort will fail to qualify as reform.

In discussions with dozens of health-care leaders and economists, I find near unanimity of opinion that, whatever its shape, the final legislation that will emerge from Congress will markedly accelerate national health-care spending rather than restrain it. Likewise, nearly all agree that the legislation would do little or nothing to improve quality or change health-care’s dysfunctional delivery system. The system we have now promotes fragmented care and makes it more difficult than it should be to assess outcomes and patient satisfaction. The true costs of health care are disguised, competition based on price and quality are almost impossible, and patients lose their ability to be the ultimate judges of value.

Worse, currently proposed federal legislation would undermine any potential for real innovation in insurance and the provision of care. It would do so by overregulating the health-care system in the service of special interests such as insurance companies, hospitals, professional organizations and pharmaceutical companies, rather than the patients who should be our primary concern.

In effect, while the legislation would enhance access to insurance, the trade-off would be an accelerated crisis of health-care costs and perpetuation of the current dysfunctional system—now with many more participants. This will make an eventual solution even more difficult. Ultimately, our capacity to innovate and develop new therapies would suffer most of all.

There are important lessons to be learned from recent experience with reform in Massachusetts. Here, insurance mandates similar to those proposed in the federal legislation succeeded in expanding coverage but—despite initial predictions—increased total spending.

A “Special Commission on the Health Care Payment System” recently declared that the Massachusetts health-care payment system must be changed over the next five years, most likely to one involving “capitated” payments instead of the traditional fee-for-service system. Capitation means that newly created organizations of physicians and other health-care providers will be given limited dollars per patient for all of their care, allowing for shared savings if spending is below the targets. Unfortunately, the details of this massive change—necessitated by skyrocketing costs and a desire to improve quality—are completely unspecified by the commission, although a new Massachusetts state bureaucracy clearly will be required.

Yet it’s entirely unclear how such unspecified changes would impact physician practices and compensation, hospital organizations and their capacity to invest, and the ability of patients to receive the kind and quality of care they desire. Similar challenges would eventually confront the entire country on a more explosive scale if the current legislation becomes law.

Selling an uncertain and potentially unwelcome outcome such as this to the public would be a challenging task. It is easier to assert, confidently but disingenuously, that decreased costs and enhanced quality would result from the current legislation.

So the majority of our representatives may congratulate themselves on reducing the number of uninsured, while quietly understanding this can only be the first step of a multiyear process to more drastically change the organization and funding of health care in America. I have met many people for whom this strategy is conscious and explicit.

We should not be making public policy in such a crucial area by keeping the electorate ignorant of the actual road ahead.

Dr. Flier is dean of the Harvard Medical School.

I’d like to thank Dr. Flier for his courageous stand. You’ve GOTTA know that the man is taking a lot of heat for it by the hard-core Massachusetts and Harvard liberal ideologue establishment. Dr. Flier clearly isn’t taking this position on the Democrats’ health agenda for his own health, as it were.

Capitation would merely be the most obvious way that the government would place doctors in a morally/ethically untenable position: they would literally be paid more to give their patients less treatment, and paid less to give their patients more treatment.

Another means of accomplishing the same result would be to have – oh, I don’t know, say 111 federal bureaucracies – which would force doctors to consider their regulations more than considering the needs of their patients.

It is evil. And Democrats are evil for foisting this abomination upon us.

9/11 should be a time for every American to ponder the events of that fateful and horrific day in 2001.

We had just suffered more casualties from a foreign enemy in an act of war than had ever been sustained by America on its own soil in its entire history – including the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Most Americans were angry and demanded action. Fully 90% supported George Bush as he laid out his plans to respond to the attack. And that support was still above 70% when President Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq in March, 2003. We passed the Patriot Act with wide margins in both branches of Congress in October of 2001. Only ONE Senator – Russ Feingold – voted against it.

And then, slowly at first, and then precipitously, Americans began to turn against the president they had supported, against the wars they had supported, and against the Patriot Act they had supported.

You can see in collections of quotes from Democrats regarding Iraq and the underlying justifications of the war how Democrats were “for that war before they were against it” as declining American support made undermining the war effort itself more and more politically advantageous.

Today, as we pause to reflect over 9/11, we no longer have a “war on terror.” Now we have an “overseas contingency operation.” We no longer want our Central Intelligence Agency to aggressively pursue terrorists and seek out any and all information to help us prevent the next attack. Now we want to criminalize those operatives who tried to keep us safe as a warning to any future CIA personnel who might be so foolish as to violate liberal morays. Better to lose a city or two than to waterboard a terrorist.

I hope that Americans soberly reflect how they would respond to the next massive terrorist attack today. Because virtually every expert agrees that another such attack is surely coming. And rather than swing wildly and frankly psychotically between extremes, perhaps we might come to a considered and committed path based on the real will of the American people.

Ask yourself this: if we are attacked again, would you want a President Bush, or would you want a President Obama? Would you want to handled the next massive attack in which thousands, or tens of thousands (or even more) Americans die to be handled as an act of war, or as a law enforcement investigation? Would you prefer to go to war against any nation that threatens us, or would you prefer to talk and negotiate instead? Would you prefer a president who fights our enemies, or a president who voted against fighting and who in fact voted for undermining the war effort in order to stop it?

Just what is it you want your commander in chief to do in response to a massive terrorist attack? What is it you expect your commander in chief to do in order to prevent such an attack from ever happening in the first place?

Let us realize that the next “Iraq” is rushing toward us in the form of a nuclear-weaponized Iran. Is such a country a threat? Should we allow them to develop their weapons of mass destruction, or should we use all means – including military power – to stop them? The media first reports that Iran’s nuclear weapons program has been dramatically slowed down, then reports that they can literally make a bomb whenever they want within the space of a couple of weeks’ time. One thing seems quite sure: Iran is inexorably working toward nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. What do we want our president to do about it? Everything? Nothing?

To the extent that the American people are even capable of genuine self-reflection and wise contemplation of the future, I hope we take this opportunity to do so today.

I also hope that every single American – regardless of political party – takes a moment to thank God for our troops and pray for their safety and for their victory.

Allow me to refresh your memories concerning the infamous Cloward-Piven strategy, which was the brainchild of two leftist professors to take total control of America by overwhelming its social support structures to create a “crisis”:

In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. Poor people can advance only when “the rest of society is afraid of them,” Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would “the rest of society” accept their demands.

The key to sparking this rebellion would be to expose the inadequacy of the welfare state. Cloward-Piven’s early promoters cited radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration. “Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules,” Alinsky wrote in his 1972 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judaeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system’s failure to “live up” to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist “rule book” with a socialist one.

I genuinely believe that Barack Obama – a follower of Saul Alinsky as well as the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate when he belonged to it to go along with a long and deep relationship with leftist radicals – is pursuing a “heads we win, tails you lose” strategy. If the economy somehow miraculously picks up under all of this massive spending and even more massive debt, then Democrats win big and Republicans lose. If – far more likely – the economy crashes under its own massive weight due to hyperinflation as interest payments on the debt soar and the Obama Treasury devalues the currency by printing money, then a starving, terrified people will scream for help from their government. And Democrats will – in solving the “crisis” they themselves created – secure the pure-socialist totalitarian state they have always envisioned. Either way, Obama liberals believe they will win big.

Government by crisis is a tried and true fascist approach. It is up to you to decide whether it is a coincidence or not that Barack Obama is using the same approach, as described by his Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel:

EMANUEL: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. What I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before. This is an opportunity. What used to be long-term problems — be they in the health care area, energy area, education area, fiscal area, tax area, regulatory reform area — things that we had postponed for too long that were long-term are now immediate and must be dealt with. And this crisis provides the opportunity for us, as I would say, the opportunity to do things that you could not do before.”

There was just one problem: Cloward-Piven depended for its success upon a death by incrementalism, as vividly depicted by a frog placed in a pot of water. If you put the frog in boiling water, it will leap out immediately. But if you put the frog in cool water and gradually turn up the heat, you can literally cook the frog to death. Obama’s problem is that he turned the heat up too fast for the American people, and they are now leaping out of the boiling cauldron he created for them.

Or, perhaps another illustration will do to depict the American people-as-frog:

Note that the article that follows is written from a clear liberal slant (e.g., “Then Obama lost control of the health care debate by letting Republicans get away with their bogus claims about “death panels.”). Nevertheless, the article clearly admits to the crisis-style mentality that Obama used to try to push through his entire agenda at once.

Barack Obama’s Big Bang is beginning to backfire, as his plans for rapid, once-in-a-generation overhauls of energy, financial regulation and health care are running into stiff resistance, both in Washington and around the country.

The Obama theory was simple, though always freighted with risk: Use a season of economic anxiety to enact sweeping changes the public likely wouldn’t stomach in ordinary times. But the abrupt swing in the public’s mood, from optimism about Obama’s possibility to concern he may be overreaching, has thrown the White House off its strategy and forced the president to curtail his ambitions.

Some Democrats point to a decision in June as the first vivid sign of trouble for Obama. These Democrats say the White House, in retrospect, made a grievous mistake by muscling conservative Democrats in swing districts to vote for a cap-and-trade energy bill that was very unpopular among their constituents.

Many of those members were pounded back home because Democrats passed a bill Republicans successfully portrayed as a big tax increase on consumers. The result: many conservative Democrats were gun-shy about taking any more risky votes — or going out on a limb on health care.

The other result: The prospects for winning final passage of a cap-and-trade bill this year are greatly diminished. And, while most Democrats still predict a health care bill will pass this year, it is likely to be a shadow of what Obama once had planned.

“The majority-makers are the freshman and sophomores from conservative districts where there’s this narrative building about giveaways, bailouts and too much change at once,” said a top House Democratic strategist, who requested anonymity to discuss internal politics candidly. “There’s this big snowball building in those districts. That’s why those folks are so scared.”

David Axelrod, Obama’s political architect, said it was “very clear early in the transition” that Obama would have to attack a number of festering issues simultaneously.

“The times demanded it,” he said in an interview. “We didn’t have the luxury of taking things sequentially, year after year, and hoping we got there. That’s the reason that all these major issues had been deferred for decades: Change is hard.”

Axelrod said the president is “looking forward to an active fall” when he returns from next week’s vacation on Martha’s Vineyard, and is not as worried about the outlook as the denizens of Washington, where “every day is election day.”

But the “Big Bang” theory of governance, as some White House insiders called it, is not without risk and consequences.

By doing so much, so fast, Obama gave Republicans the chance to define large swaths of the debate. Conservatives successfully portrayed the stimulus bill as being full of pork for Democrats. Then Obama lost control of the health care debate by letting Republicans get away with their bogus claims about “death panels.” The GOP also has successfully raised concerns that the Obama plan is a big-government takeover of health care — and much of Middle America bought the idea, according to polls.

By doing so much, so fast, Obama never sufficiently educated the public on the logic behind his policies. He spent little time explaining the biggest bailouts in U.S. history, which he inherited but supported and expanded. And then he lost crucial support on the left by not following up quickly with new and stricter rules for Wall Street. On Friday, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman echoed a concern widely shared among leading liberals. “I don’t know if administration officials realize just how much damage they’ve done themselves with their kid-gloves treatment of the financial industry, just how badly the spectacle of government supported institutions paying giant bonuses is playing.”

By doing so much so fast, Obama jammed the circuits on Capitol Hill. Congress has a hard time doing even one big thing well at a time. Congress is good at passing giveaways and tax cuts, but has not enacted a transformative piece of social legislation since President Bill Clinton’s welfare reform of 1996. “There’s a reason things up here were built to go slowly,” said another Democratic aide.

By doing so doing so much, so fast, he has left voters — especially independents — worried that he got an overblown sense of his mandates and is doing, well, too much too fast. A Washington Post-ABC News poll published Friday found that independents’ confidence in Obama’s ability to make the right decisions had dropped 20 points since the Inauguration, from 61 percent to 41 percent.

Axelrod and others argue Obama had no choice but to tackle all of these issues at once. That might be true for a stimulus bill and the bank and auto bailouts — but that case is harder to make for energy and health care, which have been the focus of intense debate for decades past and probably will for decades to come.

Go-big-or-go-home isn’t the only theory of the case that a new president can adopt. The most promising alternative is to build public support over time by showing competence and success, then using that to leverage bigger things.

So imagine if Obama had focused on fixing the economy, and chosen presidential power over congressional accommodation and constructed his American Recovery and Reinvestment Act as a true, immediate stimulus without the pork and paybacks.

He then could have pushed through tougher regulation of financial institutions, making it clear people were paying for their sins, and would have a much harder time doing it again. This would have delighted the left and perhaps bought Obama more durable support among independents. Instead, the left thinks he’s beholden to investment banks, and much of the public sees no consequences for the financial mess.

Add in some serious budget cuts, and Obama would have positioned himself as a new kind of liberal with the courage to tame Washington and Wall Street, as promised. Under this scenario, Obama might be getting more credit for the economic recovery that appears to be under way. This would have positioned him to win health care reform starting next year — a mighty achievement, and clear vindication against the doubters. Some White House officials said they are skeptical of moving controversial bills in an election year, when lawmakers are often more timid.
White House officials say they never seriously considered a more incremental approach to the year, though they did privately discuss trying to get regulation of the financial sector done right after the stimulus bill. There was too much disagreement among Democrats at the time over how far to go with regulation to proceed.

If the current strategy fails, the same person who got much of the credit for the crisp first 100 days will get some of the blame: White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. It was Emanuel who has strongly advocated the big-bang approach, declaring during the transition: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. Now, what I mean by that, it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do.”

The confidence of Obama’s aides was bolstered by their fresh memory that a similar approach had worked very effectively for then-President George W Bush after the Sept. 11 attacks. With the public on edge, Bush was able to enact restrictive policies under the banner of protecting American soil, and build an entire new department of government that voters otherwise might have opposed. The economic meltdown would be Obama’s Sept. 11 — the predicate for sweeping legislation that he wanted to enact anyway.

Just past halftime in his first year, the president has won passage of a long list of bills that the White House points to as proof of their approach. In addition to the stimulus, Obama signed major bills on tobacco, pay equity, children’s health insurance, national service and the mortgage rescue. If he gets health care and either energy or regulation this year, it would be hard to argue the big-bang plan wasn’t a success.

Former Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-Ind.), now president and director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, cautions that any verdict on Obama would be “kind of like judging a major surgical operation in the middle of the operation.”

With Obama reaching the defining season of his freshman year, Hamilton said the current agenda reminds him of the scale of the Great Society programs Congress was tackling when he came to Congress in 1965. “This president thinks big but I also think he acts pragmatically,” Hamilton said. “So many things in a congressional session come together at the last few hours, the last few weeks.”

But sometimes they just come undone.

Zachary Abrahamson contributed to this report.

A number of points of order: Politico says that “Congress…has not enacted a transformative piece of social legislation since President Bill Clinton’s welfare reform of 1996.”But Bill Clinton did not transform anything; it was the Republicans under the Contract with America who imposed the welfare reform of 1996 – and Bill Clinton was forced to sign the thing he subsequently took credit for.

Politico cannot stop itself from falling into blaming Republicans for their health care demonizing. But there is an admission that even before health care came up on Obama’s timetable, it was DEMOCRATS who were worried and frightened at the agenda: “There was too much disagreement among Democrats at the time over how far to go with regulation to proceed.” It would be nice if the mainstream media finally reported honestly and acknowledged that if health care doesn’t pass, it is because Democrats are worrying about their seats as an outraged electorate gets its revenge.

Another problem the Politico article glosses over is summed up in the statement:“By doing so much, so fast, Obama never sufficiently educated the public on the logic behind his policies.” But the issue isn’t that Obama never educated the public on the logic behind his policies; it’s that his policies don’t have any logic beyond the most superficial big-government liberalism that most Americans reject. Other than the argument, “This is a naked power-grab intended to secure Democrat control for perpetuity,” there simply IS no argument.

There’s another point that the Politico article glosses over that emerges from the statement: “There’s a reason things up here were built to go slowly,” said another Democratic aide.”That reason is the Constitution. We were never set up to be a fascist dictatorship or a totalitarian state disconnected from the deliberation of the people. Our founders made us to be a nation of laws, and follow a tried-and-true process that would slow us down to avoid tyranny.

We have the right to assemble, but the government is not obliged to transport us to protest sites. We have the right to speak, but the government is not required to provide us with a megaphone or a platform. The “negative liberties” allow us our basic freedoms while preserving our individual liberties and responsibilities. Obama wants to fundamentally do away with the Constitution in order to impose an entirely different system which creates a mega-state that will have innumerable duties to take care of us.

If he succeeds, the America that the founding fathers created will officially cease to exist. The nanny state isn’t in the Constitution, no matter how many penumbras and emanations liberal justices might claim to see in their crystal-ball-gazing.

As for the “death panels” being a bogus claim, do you want to know where the death panels are? They are right here:

The whole damn maze of bureaucracy is a “death panel.” Anyone who thinks that the government will be able to expand their government health care – which is already about to go bankrupt – to tens of millions more people, and save money doing it, is a fool. They are people who cannot see the facts through their ideology.

The Cloward-Piven strategy appears to be having a problem due to Barack Obama’s arrogance and unwillingness to continue to use the system to “get there” gradually.

The Democrats have an endgame: when the system collapses, the panicked people will turn to the very government that created the calamity and demand that it take care of them. And that is precisely what big government liberals have always preached.

One thing is clear: if Obama wins his “public option” in any form, it will become the anvil that broke the camel’s back.

If Obama’s “Big Bang” doesn’t go bust, America will be the one that goes bust and ends up exploding in a big bang of debt.